Delirium House

A witch's curse causes bad things to happen to all the people involved in the production of a horror movie and the witch herself might have possessed one of its stars.

Clearly inspired by the work of Dario Argento, Terror is one of those movies where it's best to leave logic at the door and enjoy the gory set pieces and colorful lighting. It starts off slow and even frustrating since there's not a lot of plot or character development to latch on to, but something happens midway through where, if you just turn off your brain and go along for the ride, you'll have a good time.

I'm a sucker for "Alien" ripoffs, so of course Norman J. Warren's cheesy 1980 homage, "Inseminoid" (a.k.a. Horror Planet), is a fave of mine.

Considering the relatively high production values of that flick, I thought I'd give the rest of his early horror movies a try. I obtained the Anchor Bay UK (R2) coffin boxset, which contains "Terror" (1978), as well as two previous horror flicks lensed by Warren ("Satan's Slave" from 1976 and "Prey" from 1977).

To give proper perspective to "Terror," I think it helps to compare it to Warren's earlier horror films in a chronological fashion.

But in case you don't feel like reading this entire post, here's the upshot: Norman J. Warren's straight-up horror films spiral downward in quality as time goes on; since "Terror" is one of his later films, it stinks the most. Sorry, but the stench cannot be covered up.

Without a doubt, Norman J. Warren started on a high note. His first full-length horror feature, "Satan's Slave" (1976), regardless of the absurd title, is a real gem of mid-70's horror (woman meets her evil uncle for the first time when her parents die in a car crash; uncle decides to use his stranded niece in a ritual to reincarnate an ancient witch). Maybe I was in a particularly receptive state when I popped it in, but it occurred to me that "Satan's Slave" was a real independent 70's gem with some poetic photography and some solid grue. It felt like "Let's Scare Jessica to Death" or even the lesser "The Legacy" at times. The film is caught somewhere between the then-dying Hammer Gothic style and the rise of contemporary horror films. Its carefully crafted and moody jazz-ensemble music, and its isolated, wintry English country manor setting make it a real fun time. They don't make them like this anymore. (And I thought I had perused every worthwhile 70's horror movie ever made. I was very grateful to be wrong.)

Then came "Prey" (a.k.a. Alien Prey, 1977). Shot in a week or two and with little money, the film has an interesting premise (alien with Wolfman Jack fangs crashes on an English country estate; he is here to scout out whether or not humans are edible). It effectively uses some claustrophobic settings, and the plot takes some well-timed twists. But it doesn't begin to stand up to the moodiness, and especially sympathy for the characters, that "Satan's Slave" generates. "Prey" is hampered by only having three players. The conversations seem to go round and round confusingly amongst the two lesbians and the disguised alien, and the tension is very on-again off-again. The film is inconsistent; it drags terribly in places; the photography seems rushed or crudely framed. And there's the infamous slo-mo drowning scene in the dirty pond--that goes on and on and on...

Then came "Terror" (1978), the absolute worst of the lot. The film (witch lays an ancient curse on a family which comes to pass as we watch) is apparently an homage to Argento's "Suspiria" (though I'd never, never be able to tell). Trust me: I live for confusing horror movies pasted together with hoary clichés, but this "film-like product" lacks basic structure. The characters are so thin that they seem to disappear when they turn sideways. I couldn't even remember their names, which is never a good sign. Scenes seem strung together at random; telegraphed red herrings abound. Nudity just thrown in...because. There is a "film within a film" motif used to some effect, but we've seen this done much better by others. The film is populated by characters we don't care about because we don't know them in the most rudimentary ways. I had no problem going to the fridge during this one.

It is interesting (indeed, fascinating) to juxtapose a gem like "Satan's Slave" against Warren's later "Terror" (which actually had a bigger budget; by that time, Warren had earned a bit of a name for himself too, but apparently that had little effect on quality). Take my word for it: "Terror" is by far the weaker film, thinner, less interesting, less nostalgic-feeling, less moody, less filling. It is, without question, the lowest point in the UK boxset.

OK, now that I've fulfilled my IMDb obligation, I can go pop the next DVD of the boxset into my player: A widescreen version of "Inseminoid!"

Many of the movies included in Rhino's Horrible Horrors Vol. 1 box set are just that. This one was fairly good though, certainly comparatively.

The deaths scenes in this movies are definitely stand-outs, and if people are looking for good scenes like that, here's a movie that's been overlooked. There's some decent suspense at times too, and fair special effects in poltergeist-type witch activity.

The movie starts with a title sequence of black and white still frames tinted red of people's faces, sometimes a succession of them giving the appearance of movement, then freezing. The title appears, cracks, and bleeds. Not bad. There's then a segment that is a movie-in- the-movie, a witch film in which a witch gets caught and burned at the stake, but gets her revenge on the people responsible.

This film is projected in the home of the producer, and the film was based on his family history, and his home and other items were used in the film. After a game of hypnosis seems to go wrong, resulting in the producer getting sliced with a sword, a woman runs off into the woods and gets attacked seemingly by a slasher. Other people get attacked by blades, while others die in more bizarre ways. At one point, a car floats up into tree branches!

The acting is pretty good, but somehow there was something lacking that kept me from getting terribly involved in the movie.

He didn't make Hammer rip-offs and he didn't make counterfeit Amicus flicks, either. Norman J. Warren created a horror sub-genre instead, and "Terror" is the second best of these while "Prey" is the best. Though this was clearly inspired by "Suspiria" and equally ropey in terms of structure, is is still an entertaining hour and a half.

The opening film-within-a-film, a witch burning sequence, has better production values than the rest of this shocker, but it is, nevertheless, a graphic slasher (for its time) that takes some risks. Most of the murders are knife murders and we get lots of knife POV's and a procession of red herrings. A car lifted off the ground and up into a forest canopy shows some creativity and a poor sod impaled on spikes notches another one up for bloody horror.

Despite good transfers, the Warren films still look ugly because they were not lit too well. Some of the interiors are overexposed and the hard lighting looks more accidental than planned. The performances range from adequate to somnambulistic (perhaps intentionally) and the electronic score (by Ivor Slaney) is more noisy than musical.

Worth seeing, sure, but not anything groundbreaking.

I'm easily pleased, a late night horror film doesn't have to make a lot of sense to keep me watching but Terror(1979) was a film I genuinely struggled to watch to the end. It opens with a home made horror film being screened and its makers tittering over it. What follows is no better and certainly no more convincing. Excruciating acting abounds as an ancient curse returns..yawn. It sums up everything that is truly awful about 70s horror films. The women in it are 'naice' girls who have clearly had little experience acting and emote their every line and show uncertainty by starting to talk, pausing and then starting again. The awful bonhomie and hipness of the male characters is equally awful. It really does make little sense either. I especially liked the part where the girl returns home and is seen washing copious amounts of blood from her hands but her flatmate, who she barely knows, doesn't think to mention this to the police. There's clearly a rational explanation of course. Another outstanding part is when a woman is chased through the woods by a man with a knife. She takes refuge in a shed which he briefly attacks. Less than a minute later she decides it is probably safe to go outside (as you would of course) and is stabbed to death in perhaps the least enthusiastic attacking scene ever put to film. In short there isn't even any comedy value to be gained from this as a bad movie, it is just dire and is one of the least interesting films I have ever seen.